The controls are defined in regulations and if nothing changed (K)ERS will be throttle operated.

Sorry maybe I'm thick - I know this came up earlier in the thread as well but what exactly is meant by this? KERS does not have to be throttle operated I thought? As far as I know there's a split between some teams engaging it with a button on the steering wheel and some using the throttle pedal in some way (although I'm not overly familiar with the latter)

As far as I'm aware ERS is disabled by various means under certain speeds. For instance, you never see KERS activated by a F1 driver at the start under a certain speed limit (somewhere around 90-100 kph); the Williams flywheel KERS in the Porsche GT3-R hybrid and the Audi R18 e-tron is only enabled over 120 kph; the KERS on the Toyota TS030 operates only at speeds over 80-90 kph. The latter two are most likely activated automatically through the throttle. Teams calculate at what speed the driving wheels are no longer grip-limited under power, and the KERS/ERS would only operate above that speed.

The driver might want to 'save up' the ERS for an overtaking attempt, in the same way they do it for KERS at the moment. So he needs to be able to choose when it is activated and when it is not, and also how much of it is used.

OK, so I've read this whole thread thinking, because its a technical forum, I'd come across some interesting views on the 2014 rules, but turned out to be a lot of arguing and uneducated guessing.So I felt compelled to correct a bunch of these dreadful interpretations, might just save another 5 pages of fiction...

There's no time limitation if that's what you mean. There's an energy limitation of 4MJ and a power limitation of 120kW=161bhp - so if you'd use the full 120kW, you could do so for 33s. If you use just 60kW=80hp, you could do this for 66s and so on. Well, theoretically at least.

People seem to be forgetting you can compound energy directly from the turbo to the 'KERS', so you don't need to supply 120kW from the battery to get maximum power, meaning the 4MJ should last a lot more than 33s!

to only have 600 bhp for the majority of a lap isn't good for F1.

If anything the 2014 power units will have more total power than a current V8, maybe even for the entire lap at some circuits given the actual time spent at full throttle (Monaco?).

To have to GIVE UP POWER in order to save fuel isn't impressive at all, and only gives the impression that they are castrating the cars.

All this is done at 2/3 the fuel, so they are not removing power to save fuel either.

I can not imagine a direct 'push-to-boost' control for the ERS turbine mapping but rather a dial which enables varios settings plus a 'Kers'-button to allow the driver to tramit the available energy into the driveshaft.

As far as I'm aware ERS is disabled by various means under certain speeds... Teams calculate at what speed the driving wheels are no longer grip-limited under power, and the KERS/ERS would only operate above that speed.

You have to consider the worst case which is Spa, 70% on throttle on a 110 seconds lap, which means 77 seconds.So drivers will be 44 seconds without ERS while full throttling.Therefore the controls will be just like KERS is this year.

What are all these complete guesses based on? We've already been told it's not on a button; the only thing in common with current KERS is there is an MGU on the crank - that's it! The point of the ERS being completely integrated into a power unit is it can be used as freely as the ICE. The teams map the power unit as a whole to deliver its torque via any combination of engine and the MGUs, it should be seamless to the driver how the power is delivered, as long as it meets his pedal demand, and up to the teams when they choose to harvest / deploy the turbo or 'KERS'.

If the driver pushes it to the floor, does that cause the ERS to kick in? If so, it could cause wheelspin by being activated too early. If electronics prevented that happening, you would have a kind of traction control. But apart from that, the driver will surely always be a better judge of when to use it (tactically) than the most sophisticated electronics.

So the driver will be managing precisely his energy allowance for optimum lap/race time, and his battery and fuel level in/out of every corner, whilst racing other cars? They don't know how to use 7s of KERS without being told exactly where, I think the teams optimise this stuff for a reason...

Where is the development? I'm just suggesting the lifting of the RPM limit to introduce some development.

Way too much rubbish been spoken about this RPM limit... if you have a fuel flow limit at 10'500rpm (100kg/hr), they won't be revving anywhere near 15k! The flow rate is obviously to cap the engine power, otherwise they'd return to ridiculous power outputs, and it puts an emphasis on efficiency etc... which has already been mentioned. This kind of makes the 15k limit redundant but I guess it makes the rulebook sound more exciting, as people will think they rev to 15k, when they're only doing 12k!

No it's not, a souped up Prius is about the only thing relevant to the real world. The future for most street cars is electric, not a V6 turbo.

So which electric car are you buying? This sums up what annoys me about this hating on roadcar relevance... In the real world, I drive a turbo diesel everyday, and people are buying these, or downsized turbocharged petrol engines, so the development on turbo compounding technology, whether its on an I4 or a V6, is entirely relevant, and will at least benefit those engine manufacturers in that field. The fact that the power unit also includes large capacity battery packs and light/powerful MGUs means they are also pushing the electrical technologies, so your argument is null.

How many races per season do you actually attend, because none of this is going to matter a dot on TV?As long as the cars can lap at about the pace they do now, are loud, have plenty of power, can overtake with difficulty, can get a bit sideways and look amazingly quick through places like Becketts, it should be fine. I think you are over-reacting, and like most traditionalist arguments about "change", there will be no moaning after a couple of races. F1 has to go with the times. It would look a bit stupid if they still did 130mph, had no seatbelts and wore leather helmets.

Way too much rubbish been spoken about this RPM limit... if you have a fuel flow limit at 10'500rpm (100kg/hr), they won't be revving anywhere near 15k! The flow rate is obviously to cap the engine power, otherwise they'd return to ridiculous power outputs, and it puts an emphasis on efficiency etc... which has already been mentioned. This kind of makes the 15k limit redundant but I guess it makes the rulebook sound more exciting, as people will think they rev to 15k, when they're only doing 12k!

Speaking of rubbish, how can you predict what the fuel flow limit will result as RPM. You would need BMEP figures and HP and Torque curves to be able to calculate the maximum RPM based on fuel flow. I'm betting you don't have that information.

Speaking of rubbish, how can you predict what the fuel flow limit will result as RPM. You would need BMEP figures and HP and Torque curves to be able to calculate the maximum RPM based on fuel flow. I'm betting you don't have that information.

He's totally correct. Rules specify max fuel flow limit at 10500rpm. Due to increasing friction with rpm the max efficiency (and power) will therefore be at speeds from 10500rpm upwards. With an 8 speed gear box (fixed ratios for the year), and a top speed of about 320km/hr and a traction limit below about 100km/hr (spinning wheels due to too much power) that means that each gear will need to run through a speed range of 3.2^0.125 or in rpm terms from 10500-12150rpm to cover that 100-320km/hr speed range. It would be stupid to design the engine to run faster than that.

He's totally correct. Rules specify max fuel flow limit at 10500rpm. Due to increasing friction with rpm the max efficiency (and power) will therefore be at speeds from 10500rpm upwards. With an 8 speed gear box (fixed ratios for the year), and a top speed of about 320km/hr and a traction limit below about 100km/hr (spinning wheels due to too much power) that means that each gear will need to run through a speed range of 3.2^0.125 or in rpm terms from 10500-12150rpm to cover that 100-320km/hr speed range. It would be stupid to design the engine to run faster than that.

I think the gearboxes will have 9 gears and the cars will run faster than 320. They will be way more drag efficient than this year where we would make 345 at Monza and 330 at Spa.

OK, so I've read this whole thread thinking, because its a technical forum, I'd come across some interesting views on the 2014 rules, but turned out to be a lot of arguing and uneducated guessing.So I felt compelled to correct a bunch of these dreadful interpretations, might just save another 5 pages of fiction...

People seem to be forgetting you can compound energy directly from the turbo to the 'KERS', so you don't need to supply 120kW from the battery to get maximum power, meaning the 4MJ should last a lot more than 33s![...]

Yea, in theory. The problem is that the MGU-K is only allowed to provide 2 out of the 4MJ/lap in the energy storage. So you will need the MGU-H to charge the batteries as well, and i'm not sure there will be much left for direct compounding. I remember an article about the impact of turbo compounding on a 2014 F1 engine and they got about 30kW out of it in a simulation - so getting up to 2MJ would take about a minute. But that was at high revs and with a separate axial turbine as well while F1 has to use a single-turbine setup, which is probably less than ideal.

Take energy losses into account and you'll likely end up at less than 30s of full 120kW ERS power.

He's totally correct. Rules specify max fuel flow limit at 10500rpm. Due to increasing friction with rpm the max efficiency (and power) will therefore be at speeds from 10500rpm upwards. With an 8 speed gear box (fixed ratios for the year), and a top speed of about 320km/hr and a traction limit below about 100km/hr (spinning wheels due to too much power) that means that each gear will need to run through a speed range of 3.2^0.125 or in rpm terms from 10500-12150rpm to cover that 100-320km/hr speed range. It would be stupid to design the engine to run faster than that.

Sorry maybe I'm thick - I know this came up earlier in the thread as well but what exactly is meant by this? KERS does not have to be throttle operated I thought? As far as I know there's a split between some teams engaging it with a button on the steering wheel and some using the throttle pedal in some way (although I'm not overly familiar with the latter)

(K)ERS was meant to be a proper, integral part of the drivetrain, not a push-to-pas system. When the driver applies throttle, the electronics will use the system for acceleration or more power to fight off drag (less probable). How much will be used in which circumstances will be decided by engine (or KERS) maps and the driver will probably be able to switch the maps and tune that behavior just like they can change other similar settings.It won't aid overtaking much - a much bigger percentage of overall power will come from KERS so the drivers won't be able to "save" much extra power and gain an edge. Even the current push-to-pass system doesn't work as a overtaking enhancer much.

It is possible that something changed lately..

My understaning is that currently when KERS is switched on, it immediately delivers full power. It's an on-off switch, unlike engine power which is controlled by use of the throttle.

If ERS will be delivering a lot more grunt, it surely becomes necessary for the driver to have more precise control.

I think that currently they can switch KERS settings (power output, harvesting for example)

People seem to be forgetting you can compound energy directly from the turbo to the 'KERS', so you don't need to supply 120kW from the battery to get maximum power, meaning the 4MJ should last a lot more than 33s!

Don't the rules specify how much energy can be used during a lap, not stored in batteries?

Electric cars for all the hype are massively in efficent and there is no such thing as Zero emissions. Power has to come from somewhere.

There is such thing as zero emissions. In my town we get our electricity from nuclear and hydroelectric. China is starting to go full out with solar panel manufacturing; at some point it's going to be pointless not to power your house with them. At which point you're going to want to charge your Chinese electric car for free in the same way.

Meanwhile the west, as in all other industries save Hollywood, will be left wondering "what happened". Where will F1 be then?

Agreed, but with double the power, surely they need a more precise way of controlling it?

Electronics are precise enough. I actually wonder how will they limit it so teams won't achieve a TC like effect. Though engine maps aren't good enough in that field so maybe the issue doesn't exist (unless there's a loophole, which would be interesting). All this is assuming that the idea that (K)ERS is controlled by the very same throttle pedal as the rest of the engine is still in the rules.

@Up: nuclear power (which I support) produces waste, so it's not exactly zero emission, Unless you're referring to the CO2 BS. but even then, when someone buys a new car, the car doesn't magically appear from nothing and without energy use. So unless the factories are also powered by "zero emission" sources, than the buyer introduces a lot of emission without driving a mile. Electric cars have also batteries that are potentially toxic and have to be neutralized eventually.

Don't the rules specify how much energy can be used during a lap, not stored in batteries?

You obviously didn't read them because the 4MJ limit clearly only applies from battery to MGU-K.

Agreed, but with double the power, surely they need a more precise way of controlling it?

Just because a larger proportion of a similar total power comes from 'KERS', doesn't change how sensitive the throttle will be!

There is such thing as zero emissions. In my town we get our electricity from nuclear and hydroelectric. China is starting to go full out with solar panel manufacturing; at some point it's going to be pointless not to power your house with them. At which point you're going to want to charge your Chinese electric car for free in the same way.Meanwhile the west, as in all other industries save Hollywood, will be left wondering "what happened". Where will F1 be then?

Unless this all happens tomorrow, I am sure the F1 rules are capable of changing to become more relevant (again).

So unless the factories are also powered by "zero emission" sources, than the buyer introduces a lot of emission without driving a mile. Electric cars have also batteries that are potentially toxic and have to be neutralized eventually.

There is no reason factories can't be powered by solar, and with homes powered by solar there are effectively zero emissions. That batteries are toxic and inefficient is my point: as much money that is spent in F1, if the zeitgeist of F1 wants a clear conscience throwing that money at an open electric rule book would have a greater pay off than anything else - teams competing to see who can make their eco-friendly battery the smallest and lightest.

The only reason we all aren't driving electric cars now, and don't have solar panels on our roofs is because of the oil cabal. We could mass produce solar panels way more cheaply than coal - if allowed to; the companies that are already operating at full capacity in the U.S. are exporting to Germany, it's a shame the U.S. government doesn't see the industry as an opportunity - but China does.

What private firm is spending millions on battery research? Nobody. If FOM announced "next year you can run the 2014 spec IC engine, or run fully unencumbered whatever electric based power you want" you'd have engineers chomping at the bit to run ultra high torque electric motors without the baggage of a transmission, and then the only issue would be "how small and efficient can we make the batteries?".

THAT would really change our daily lives. But then, it would get back to my original point: you'd have silent cars. I say either bet the bank on technology - REAL, 21st century technology - or admit that racing IC engine cars is an anachronism and make it visual and sonically as impressive as possible.

Just listened to Derek Warwick talking about the 1985 Brabham - 1300 bhp, couldn't shift the gears fast enough, made him smile the whole way around the track. THAT is Formula One! One way or another: real technology, or real entertainment. This half-assery "solution" does nothing for the entertainment value of F1, nor does it do anything real for the eco-friendly side of things. Like Darrin Heath says, get rid of the diesel generators they use to run the tire warmers all night - and let them run 3.5 liter V10s....

The only reason we all aren't driving electric cars now, and don't have solar panels on our roofs is because of the oil cabal. We could mass produce solar panels way more cheaply than coal - if allowed to; the companies that are already operating at full capacity in the U.S. are exporting to Germany, it's a shame the U.S. government doesn't see the industry as an opportunity - but China does.

Solar panels are way too inefficient at the moment. And they can't be used everywhere.

What I found baffling this last week were all the thumbs up reports from journalists who 'heard' the 2014 Mercedes engine recently. They all gave glowing reports of how LOUD the thing was.

But, and this is telling, only one or two scribes admitted that it was a recording that was played for the gathered writers. The engine was on display, but wasn't fired up in their presence. How do they know it is loud? What if Mercedes had simply played the recording of it....really really loud?

It surely isn't just me that finds this notion of loudness quite, well...childish?

There is such thing as zero emissions. In my town we get our electricity from nuclear and hydroelectric. China is starting to go full out with solar panel manufacturing; at some point it's going to be pointless not to power your house with them. At which point you're going to want to charge your Chinese electric car for free in the same way.

Meanwhile the west, as in all other industries save Hollywood, will be left wondering "what happened". Where will F1 be then?

In the real world there are no such thing as zero emissions, hydro, nuclear and solar, they are all cause emissions of various sorts. A hydroelectric power plant for instance release large amounts of methane during operation, they affect biodiversity, and CO2 and other emissions are released when they are built. Secondly, there is no such thing as free energy, and solar is one of the most expensive ways to produce electricity (which is why it isn't built without subsidies). Solar also produce electricity in such a manner that it is significantly more expensive to use compared to say hydro or coal. To simply store the energy produced by solar during the day it so it can be used when there is a demand is a huge challenge. Solar cells also consume large amounts of raw materials, significantly more than other energy sources - which is why they are expensive and energy consuming to make. The same can be said about electric cars - and the energy density of batteries is only a small fraction compared to liquid or gaseous fuels.

First of all, let’s mention the rules rather than the engine. For 2014, the rules specify a maximum race fuel allowance of 100 kg – compared to a typical race fuel load of around 150 kg today, although that’s not fixed by the rules.

That means we have one third less fuel to complete the same race distance with – and we want to do it at the same speed. So we need a powertrain that’s 30% more energy efficient.

And that’s where the new engine comes in?

Well, it’s not really just an engine any more. Without getting too technical, Article 1.22 of the Technical Regulations now refers to what’s called a ‘Power Unit’. This comprises an ICE (Internal Combustion Engine), an ERS (Energy Recovery System) and all the ancillaries needed to make them work.

But why a Power Unit? Well, today’s V8 essentially features a “bolt-on” KERS Hybrid system that was added during the engine’s life. The 2014 Power Unit has been designed with integrated hybrid systems from the very beginning.

Interesting. F1 loves jargon, so ICE and ERS sound just perfect. What do they mean?

The ICE is the traditional engine in the Power Unit package. 1.6 litre capacity, turbocharged, and with direct fuel injection at a pressure of up to 100 bar. Where the current engines rev to 18,000 rpm, the ICE is limited to 15,000 rpm from 2014.

As for ERS, it’s like KERS on steroids: not only can we still harvest energy from and deploy energy to the rear axle, we can now do the same from the turbocharger; the kinetic machine is called MGUK (Motor Generator Unit Kinetic) and the machine on the turbo an MGUH (‘h’ for heat).

In total, we are allowed to harvest and deploy energy at twice the power to the rear axle – so 161 hp compared to 80.5 hp today. And we are allowed to deploy ten times as much energy – 4MJ compared to 400 kJ. Simply put, that means a bigger power boost for a higher percentage of the lap.

And that’s what helps improve the efficiency?

Exactly. Part of the efficiency gain comes from the ICE, which runs at lower speeds with fewer moving parts than the V8 and the benefit of turbocharging; but the other part is to be found in the ERS.

Today, the fuel energy we combust in the engine then has one possible energy journey to improve system efficiency, via the KERS system.

In 2014, there will be up to seven possible energy journeys to keep energy within the vehicle rather than wasting it through the exhausts and brakes.

Sound pretty impressive. Will it be exciting for the fans?

We believe so. The target is to achieve the same power output of around 750 hp but to do so using around 30% less fuel.

In terms of sound, the engine note is not as loud as the current V8 because of two factors: the lower engine speed and the fact that the turbocharger sits in the exhaust flow, recovering energy from it that would otherwise be lost as heat and sound.

But because of the mechanical balance of a V6 engine, it also sounds sweeter. And we’re confident that fans will find it pretty exciting when they hear it at the track.

What impact will it have on the racing?

First of all, the engine is going to produce a lot more torque than the current V8 and over a wider power band.

That means the car is going to be grip limited on corner exit, in technical terms; in layman’s terms, they’re going to be a handful for the drivers.

The next point is that it will reward the most intelligent drivers - the fastest way to finish a race will not always be straightforward and the cleverest drivers will probably adapt fastest to the new challenges.

So will we see F1 turned into an economy run – or cars running out of fuel in the latter stages?

Unlikely. Managing fuel consumption is already a critical part of F1 and it will remain so in 2014; for example, did you know that our V8 can complete a race distance today using 11.6% less fuel than it did in 2006?

Today, teams are very good at monitoring fuel consumption: we track each injection of fuel into each cylinder so we know exactly how much fuel is being used. And there are over five million injections in an average race!

Ultimately, the smartest driver in the quickest car will be successful in 2014, which remains true to the fundamental challenge of Formula One. What we’re really doing is putting the ‘motor’ back into ‘motorsport’…

There is no reason factories can't be powered by solar, and with homes powered by solar there are effectively zero emissions. That batteries are toxic and inefficient is my point: as much money that is spent in F1, if the zeitgeist of F1 wants a clear conscience throwing that money at an open electric rule book would have a greater pay off than anything else - teams competing to see who can make their eco-friendly battery the smallest and lightest.

The only reason we all aren't driving electric cars now, and don't have solar panels on our roofs is because of the oil cabal. We could mass produce solar panels way more cheaply than coal - if allowed to; the companies that are already operating at full capacity in the U.S. are exporting to Germany, it's a shame the U.S. government doesn't see the industry as an opportunity - but China does.

What private firm is spending millions on battery research? Nobody. If FOM announced "next year you can run the 2014 spec IC engine, or run fully unencumbered whatever electric based power you want" you'd have engineers chomping at the bit to run ultra high torque electric motors without the baggage of a transmission, and then the only issue would be "how small and efficient can we make the batteries?".

THAT would really change our daily lives. But then, it would get back to my original point: you'd have silent cars. I say either bet the bank on technology - REAL, 21st century technology - or admit that racing IC engine cars is an anachronism and make it visual and sonically as impressive as possible.

Just listened to Derek Warwick talking about the 1985 Brabham - 1300 bhp, couldn't shift the gears fast enough, made him smile the whole way around the track. THAT is Formula One! One way or another: real technology, or real entertainment. This half-assery "solution" does nothing for the entertainment value of F1, nor does it do anything real for the eco-friendly side of things. Like Darrin Heath says, get rid of the diesel generators they use to run the tire warmers all night - and let them run 3.5 liter V10s....

What I found baffling this last week were all the thumbs up reports from journalists who 'heard' the 2014 Mercedes engine recently. They all gave glowing reports of how LOUD the thing was.

But, and this is telling, only one or two scribes admitted that it was a recording that was played for the gathered writers. The engine was on display, but wasn't fired up in their presence. How do they know it is loud? What if Mercedes had simply played the recording of it....really really loud?

It surely isn't just me that finds this notion of loudness quite, well...childish?

I agree that loudness isn't really what matters.

However, back in the 1970s, we all thought that turbo engines were quiet. Then I was in the pitlane at Silverstone when the brand new Renault V6 turbo debuted and was standing examining the Renault RS01 when they started it up. It was very definitely NOT quiet.

In the real world there are no such thing as zero emissions, hydro, nuclear and solar, they are all cause emissions of various sorts. A hydroelectric power plant for instance release large amounts of methane during operation, they affect biodiversity, and CO2 and other emissions are released when they are built. Secondly, there is no such thing as free energy, and solar is one of the most expensive ways to produce electricity (which is why it isn't built without subsidies). Solar also produce electricity in such a manner that it is significantly more expensive to use compared to say hydro or coal. To simply store the energy produced by solar during the day it so it can be used when there is a demand is a huge challenge. Solar cells also consume large amounts of raw materials, significantly more than other energy sources - which is why they are expensive and energy consuming to make. The same can be said about electric cars - and the energy density of batteries is only a small fraction compared to liquid or gaseous fuels.

how does a hydroelectric plant produce methane? (i googled, and its bio matter in the water that can be released)

as for solar panels, if we could get cheap, eco friendly to produce panels, stick em everywhere.

Ultimately, the smartest driver in the quickest car will be successful in 2014, which remains true to the fundamental challenge of Formula One. What we’re really doing is putting the ‘motor’ back into ‘motorsport’…

The hypocrisy in that statement is outstanding. Yeah sure, like today's drivers have to "think" when they drive... It's been ages already without any more "Prosts" onboard. All the current drivers do is follow orders from their teams. They don't think, computers "think" and they just follow.

IF they got rid of radio and all kind of communication from car to pit and vice-versa I would start to believe that, a little.

In the current state, they are just mere operators following a procedure.

But, and this is telling, only one or two scribes admitted that it was a recording that was played for the gathered writers. The engine was on display, but wasn't fired up in their presence. How do they know it is loud? What if Mercedes had simply played the recording of it....really really loud?

They don't, and can't know.

A lot of famous rock recordings - a *lot* - were made using a tiny amplifier made by Fender called a "Champ", or other tiny amps. The early Zeppelin records, for example - the impression of "loud" is *psychoacoustic*, it relies on the space you are in as much as anything else. Page is famous for appearing on stage with stacks of Marshall amps, but a lot of his most famous "loud" guitar sounds were made with a little Supro amplifier.

A *relative* measurement of loud is not a measurement of *power*. It is simply impossible for 600 hp to have as much acoustic power as 850+. Just because you have two sound sources that at 3 feet produce 120 db does not mean you're going to hear both from a mile away, or that it's going to *affect it's acoustical environment the same way*.

That is a technical difference, one that most people are not aware of. 3 liters at a given rpm is going to be louder than 1.5, and with 850 bhp pushing it, there is more energy being dissipated. A 600 hp 1.5 liter motor can not - particularly at 15,000 rpm - sound as impressive as 3 liters, 850 hp at 19,000. It doesn't matter that you're forcing "more" air/fuel through it because of the turbo, the bhp that is being put out is the limiting factor. It is literally the energy going through the system.

You can change the bandwidth of what's coming out - make it more annoying/louder at a certain frequency, or make it wider - but then it has to be softer.

It surely isn't just me that finds this notion of loudness quite, well...childish?

What kind of music do you listen to?

I am a jaded old rock musician. I imagine my perception of a "loud rock concert" isn't much different than F1 veteran's opinions on the subject of "does the impressiveness of the engine sounds matter?". When I was younger, it was uber thrilling to hear a big p.a. system from *outside* an enormous arena, then to hear the sheer impressiveness of the sound inside such a large space. I still get a thrill from that, momentarily. But it's not like it used to be; I'd be just as content to hear any band at 82db from a very nice stereo system than at 109db+.

BUT, like it or not, "rock music", even in it's present retrograde state, would not exist at 82db in a live context. That is the realm of The Singer Songwriter Performance.

F1 is VanHalen, Queen, Zeppelin, Metallica. People can listen to these groups at home, but for "some reason" they pay to hear them LOUD.

F1 is effectively toying with the notion of "people will still pay to go to a Foo Fighters show if it's only 82db. They'll get used to it. The music is still there, the live human performance, and the lights".

I like the 10,500 rule regulating fuel flow; they'll have to use ERS to help acceleration, hopefully that will mean more interesting corner exits.

BUT,

Is there anything I'm missing that keeps them from using ERS to keep the turbo at speed?

If they made the turbo in line with the ERS drive with a "differential" slip-transmission they could both keep the turbo at a default pressurization, electronically meter a valve output, and once up to the default speed both harvest the momentum from it as well as having the knock-on effect of blowing more air through it - cooling it - off throttle? No turbo lag, cooler turbo, and ERS is getting recharged by wasted energy off the turbo.

That's not that hard, no. But it would still be easier to just mandate a capacity limit.

Edit: Heh, looks like i didn't look close enough. There's an ERS power flow diagram on the last page of the Technical Regulations that lists "Race fuel allowance (F1 Sporting Regulations)" as an engine limitation. flyinglow and Allen were absolutely right then. Still don't get why this is even necessary.

It is not excessive to have both fuel-flow-limiting and a fuel tank regulation or fuel-per-lap regulation or fuel-per-race regulation. If only max fuel flow was regulated, the teams could theoretically run max flow at all rpm. The sport wouldn't save any fuel, and the teams wouldn't necessarily be working hard to improve TE. LMP1 will use max fuel-flow, max fuel per lap, and max fuel tank capacity regulations.

Since F1 has uniform displacement and cylinders for everyone (F1 is also sprint format), they have decided to create a fuel-flow-per-rpm formula. It would be excessive to have an rpm-sensitive FFL and fuel tank capacity regulations, imo. I don't think F1 will have fuel tank capacity regulations. If you read about all of the race fuel allowance proposals, they stipulate a fuel allotment per season. It's in the sporting regs b/c they want it to be publicly promoted as one of F1's green credentials. I don't think it will have a major impact on the size of the fuel tank, but it may affect fueling strategy over the season. Teams may push at some tracks and save at others. Attack and parry, kind of like the aero homologation schedules chosen by the teams.

A 600 hp 1.5 liter motor can not - particularly at 15,000 rpm - sound as impressive as 3 liters, 850 hp at 19,000. [/b][/size] It doesn't matter that you're forcing "more" air/fuel through it because of the turbo, the bhp that is being put out is the limiting factor. It is literally the energy going through the system.

A MotoGP bike (250hp) produces roughly the same decibels as an F1 car. The exhaust pressure is what makes a difference, and racing engines often create extraordinary exhaust volume b/c the stroke is too short to extract the energy from combustion. The piston pushes expanding gases out of the exhaust, and that's what generates the noise. Basically, all Otto engines have this characteristic.

The new engines will be quieter b/c the exhaust pressure will be harnessed to turn a turbine, and the pressure and velocity of the exiting exhaust should be considerably less. I'm happy about it for several reasons. First, I would love to enjoy the note of an F1 engine without damaging my hearing. Second, F1 tracks will stop being harassed for noise violations. Finally, lower exhaust velocity means that blowing the aerowork will be less effective, and downforce will be reduced, which should make less wake and better racing (hopefully).

He's totally correct. Rules specify max fuel flow limit at 10500rpm. Due to increasing friction with rpm the max efficiency (and power) will therefore be at speeds from 10500rpm upwards. With an 8 speed gear box (fixed ratios for the year), and a top speed of about 320km/hr and a traction limit below about 100km/hr (spinning wheels due to too much power) that means that each gear will need to run through a speed range of 3.2^0.125 or in rpm terms from 10500-12150rpm to cover that 100-320km/hr speed range. It would be stupid to design the engine to run faster than that.

By your own admission, max efficiency and power occur at 10,500rpm. What team is going to cruise at 12,150rpm? Furthermore, if you're flat-out in 4th gear, why would you shift to 5th, if the engine can pull another 2,850rpm at maximum acceleration? The drivers are still trying to win, right?

The fuel flow limit is not going to turn racing into a hypermile competition.

A MotoGP bike (250hp) produces roughly the same decibels as an F1 car. The exhaust pressure is what makes a difference, and racing engines often create extraordinary exhaust volume b/c the stroke is too short to extract the energy from combustion. The piston pushes expanding gases out of the exhaust, and that's what generates the noise. Basically, all Otto engines have this characteristic.

The new engines will be quieter b/c the exhaust pressure will be harnessed to turn a turbine, and the pressure and velocity of the exiting exhaust should be considerably less. I'm happy about it for several reasons. First, I would love to enjoy the note of an F1 engine without damaging my hearing. Second, F1 tracks will stop being harassed for noise violations. Finally, lower exhaust velocity means that blowing the aerowork will be less effective, and downforce will be reduced, which should make less wake and better racing (hopefully).

In your dreams. Race tracks are under attack even when the racing is in a series that creates far less noise than F1.

It is not excessive to have both fuel-flow-limiting and a fuel tank regulation or fuel-per-lap regulation or fuel-per-race regulation. If only max fuel flow was regulated, the teams could theoretically run max flow at all rpm. The sport wouldn't save any fuel, and the teams wouldn't necessarily be working hard to improve TE. LMP1 will use max fuel-flow, max fuel per lap, and max fuel tank capacity regulations.

Since F1 has uniform displacement and cylinders for everyone (F1 is also sprint format), they have decided to create a fuel-flow-per-rpm formula. It would be excessive to have an rpm-sensitive FFL and fuel tank capacity regulations, imo. I don't think F1 will have fuel tank capacity regulations. If you read about all of the race fuel allowance proposals, they stipulate a fuel allotment per season. It's in the sporting regs b/c they want it to be publicly promoted as one of F1's green credentials. I don't think it will have a major impact on the size of the fuel tank, but it may affect fueling strategy over the season. Teams may push at some tracks and save at others. Attack and parry, kind of like the aero homologation schedules chosen by the teams.

They can't run max flow at all rpm because of article 5.15: "Below 10500 rpm the fuel mass flow must not exceed Q(kg/h)=0.009N(rpm)+5.5."

And while the Sporting Regulations are not published yet, James Allen said there will be a 100kg fuel allowance per race - that's not a capacity limitation per se of course, but why would teams run tanks significantly larger than 140l then?

I'm not complaining. They won't want to use the full tank capacity anyway.

They can't run max flow at all rpm because of article 5.15: "Below 10500 rpm the fuel mass flow must not exceed Q(kg/h)=0.009N(rpm)+5.5."

".....[F1] have decided to create a fuel-flow-per-rpm formula." I know they have a rpm-sensitive formula. This is only possible b/c F1 has uniform displacement. LMP1 will not have uniform displacement so they can only stipulate max fuel flow rate. This also requires the use of fuel capacity and fuel-per-lap (or fuel-per-race) restrictions to promote thermal efficiency and accurately control vehicle performance.

And while the Sporting Regulations are not published yet, James Allen said there will be a 100kg fuel allowance per race - that's not a capacity limitation per se of course, but why would teams run tanks significantly larger than 140l then?

I'm not complaining. They won't want to use the full tank capacity anyway.

Because different rounds require different amounts of fuel. If 100kg/140l is the mean, some rounds require more and some rounds will require less.

".....[F1] have decided to create a fuel-flow-per-rpm formula." I know they have a rpm-sensitive formula. This is only possible b/c F1 has uniform displacement. LMP1 will not have uniform displacement so they can only stipulate max fuel flow rate. This also requires the use of fuel capacity and fuel-per-lap (or fuel-per-race) restrictions to promote thermal efficiency and accurately control vehicle performance.

Because different rounds require different amounts of fuel. If 100kg/140l is the mean, some rounds require more and some rounds will require less.

I read that part you wrote about the rpm-sensitive formula, but i was confused why you still wrote that they could just run max fuel flow at all rpm. Guess you meant the max flow that article allows for that respective rpm.

Allen's article didn't make it sound like a mean amount but the maximum allowance for every race. If they would set different allowances for every race, it would make more sense, i agree.

Exactly. Part of the efficiency gain comes from the ICE, which runs at lower speeds with fewer moving parts than the V8 and the benefit of turbocharging; but the other part is to be found in the ERS.

Today, the fuel energy we combust in the engine then has one possible energy journey to improve system efficiency, via the KERS system.

In 2014, there will be up to seven possible energy journeys to keep energy within the vehicle rather than wasting it through the exhausts and brakes.

(and the interview as a whole)

are quite interesting. Made me think a lot about the various tasks of the motoristi. The integration of the MGUH into the ICE unit with the turbo alone sounds very intriguing. Did anybody spot something about a bypass for the turbo in the regulations? The turbine will obviously be designed for high rpm and high exhaust volumes compared to one seen in roadcars and the MGUH should be able to harvest enough of the energy to avoid too much boost on the intake side, but if exhaust blowing is still of importance the downforce obtained by the 'direct' exhaust stream might be more beneficial in sections like slow corners for the lap time.

I read that part you wrote about the rpm-sensitive formula, but i was confused why you still wrote that they could just run max fuel flow at all rpm. Guess you meant the max flow that article allows for that respective rpm.

Allen's article didn't make it sound like a mean amount but the maximum allowance for every race. If they would set different allowances for every race, it would make more sense, i agree.

I said that max fuel flow regulations are not enough to create fuel efficiency. LMP1 will use fuel-per-lap regulations and fuel capacity regulations to force the teams to use fuel efficiently. F1 will use an rpm-based fuel flow equation, which you listed in your previous post.

As you said in the beginning, it makes little sense to have a max fuel flow rate, a fuel flow equation, and maximum fuel cell size. I agree. If the FIA wanted the competitors to use the same amount of fuel at every race, why would they put a seasonal allotment in the sporting regulations? Why not regulate the size of the fuel tanks and be done with it?

I think the capacity and shape of the fuel tanks is still free, and the teams will decide how much fuel to use at each race. This strategy would be advantageous for entertainment, like the current bodywork and aero homologations. Teams decide how much they want to specialize the design and fuel strategy for particular circuits. These strategies leave them vulnerable at other circuits.

This is essentially why F1 had 8 different winners from 6 different teams in 2012.

I like how the diagram suggests that the MGUH will be used as a anti-lag system

This is quite obvious, but keep the following in mind. The energy flow from the ES through the MGUK to the wheels should be considerably more efficient most of the time then the one running through the MGUH and should in general arguably have precedence. It is no surprise thus to me that the rules are limiting that transfer and not the one between the MGUH and the ES. In any way the generator doing a similar anti-lag job in a different way like the supercharger in the video. As I said before the mapping should be extremly interesting and will be subject to the exact rulings concerning fuel-flow and overall fuel mass, apart from many other aspects.

I already mentioned that, the regs permitting, the driver will have almost certainly have the ability to deploy some of the energy of the ES KERS-like, both to defend and to attack and possibly to pit-pass.